Skip to main content

June 15, 2009 – It was a pleasure to look at the Greenpeace website today

(See “Blogs I Follow”). It struck me as very logical in its presentation, with easy access to writings about a host of environmental issues. As a matter of interest, their brief explanation of the why’s and wherefore’s of geothermal (see my post, June 2) makes for informative reading.

So does their article “The Nuclear Fallacy.” I sure didn’t know this: if all fossil fuel applications were replaced by nuclear energy, the world would run out of uranium in four years!!! Like the man said, it’s the things you don’t know that will kill you. While there is no one advocating such a wholesale transition to nuclear power, the

relatively small amounts of uranium available for energy generation make its use cost prohibitive. Why on earth spend billions of dollars on nuclear power plants when the limited supply of uranium will turn them into white elephants, possibly before their normal lifespan of 50 years? Since we all know that no one wants to store the waste, and even fewer people – if that’s possible! – want the waste shipped through their town, the spent fuel rods would be stored at the site of the power plant. The landscape would be dotted with radioactive hotspots from coast to coast.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Time to be Scared

November 26, 2018 You've heard by now that the US Global Change Research Program released its Fourth National Climate Assessment last Friday. Scientists are, at last, confident enough to say that climate change is the new reality. How very much I wish they had published this bold assertion many years ago, rather than always being hesitant (" . . . we're 73% sure this could happen . . ."). While I know the politics involved cannot be allowed to sway them, and that scientists are unaccustomed to speaking for the masses, their inability to convince the scientifically uneducated of the value in climate change hypotheses has hurt us all. In any event, they have now spoken up loudly and clearly. According to NOAA, one of the 13 government agencies responsible for the Assessment, we can expect the following, should mitigating actions not be taken immediately: - Human health and safety, quality of life, and economic growth will all suffer.        The 2014 Assessment c...

A Rock and a Hard Place

October 8, 2012 - Such a pickle: we have the coal, but no longer want to burn it.  China wants the coal, but shouldn't burn it because of the resulting air pollution.  Coal mining companies in the U.S. are ready and waiting to ship their coal to China.  Citizens of the U.S. living on its west coast are adamant they want nothing to do with exporting coal.  That includes Oregon Governor John Kitzhaber.  Kitzhaber's April 25 letter to Interior Secretary Ken Salazar expresses his profound skepticism about shipping coal by way of Oregon's ports.  He has requested that a programatic Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) first be conducted for all five of the export projects currently being considered, as well as a comprehensive policy review.  Here is part of a press release announcing his letter: "I have concerns about proceeding in this direction [exporting coal to China via Oregon ports] in the absence of a full national discussion about the ramif...